Grex Goes to the movies - the Summer Movies Review item

323 responses total.

        More horrible than any horror film!!

        I am shreiking in horror!

        Evidently there is a remake of
        Manchurian Candidate about to be
        released. I am so horrified,
        that I need to play a soothing
        game of solitaire.

        Starring Terrible Meryl Streep
        (screams in horror) as . .
        'Angela Lansbury'! (faints)

        Maybe Jon Voight will save it.
        Or maybe monkeys will fly out of his
        ears. With The Gulf War as a stunt double
        for the Korean War. From the dude who
        brought us Silence of the Cramps.

        Wait, IMDB has made some mistake,
        it's not filed under genre = horror.

 > With The Gulf War as a stunt double for the Korean War.

 "The Babylonian Candidate"?

 I agree, that doesn't sound promising..  "The Manchurian Candidate"
 was kind of marginal to begin with and the thing which redeemed it
 for me was its camp value.  Judging from past efforts to remake that
 sort of film, striking the right balance is a very difficult task.

FAHRENHEIT 9/11--  This is the incendiary new documentary from Oscar 
winning writer/director and Flint, Michigan resident Michael Moore.  
This movie is a scathing indictment of George W. Bush and his 
administration.  It starts with the 2000 election debacle and then 
shows 9/11/2001, with the planes hitting the World Trade Center.  As 
the first plane crashes into the WTC, we see unedited footage of what 
Bush was doing at that exact moment.  He was reading a children's book 
at a kindegarten class in Florida.  An aide comes in and whispers in 
his book, "we're under attack"  Bush doesn't do or say anything, just 
goes on nonchalanlantly reading his book.  Then seven minutes later, 
he's still reading his book, and the second plane hits, and still he 
does nothing.  

Moore goes into extensive detail about the relationship between the 
Bush family and the Saudis and the Bin Ladens.  We see George HW Bush 
(Bush the Sr.) in the weeks before the attacks, in Texas meeting with 
Bin Laden family members who were investors in Texas oil stocks.  We 
find out that when Bush released the records of his service (or lack 
thereof) in the Reserves in Alabama, the official documents released 
had some names marked through.  Of course Moore got hold of the 
unmarked documents, and we find out that they had marked through the 
name of the other person who was in the Reserves with Bush and got a 
medical leave at the same time.  A man who is an old friend of Bush and 
later became one of the Bin Laden's money men in the U.S.  The 
implication being made is that we attacked Iraq to divert attention 
from Afghanistan, because the Saudis and the Bin Ladens and the Taliban 
are all heavily invested in the U.S. and in the oil industry.  In fact, 
it is claimed that the Saudis have some $800 billion dollars invested 
in U.S. industries, meaning they basically own 1/7th of the U.S.  
Moore's argument seems to be that Bush and co. knew we were 
bloodthirsty after 9/11 and wanted to hang someone, but he wanted to 
spare Bin Laden and not expose the Saudi connections, so we went after 
Saddam Hussein instead.  

It goes on and on.  Moore absolutely roasts Bush.  Members of Congress 
aren't spared either.  Moore goes to Capital Hill and finds out from a 
Congressman that most legislators don't read the bills they vote on, 
because they don't have time.  Then he gets a full copy of the Patriot 
Act, and drives around the Capital in an ice cream truck, holding a 
megaphone, and reading it out loud.  

The most moving parts of the movie come when Moore goes back to Flint, 
Michigan and follows Marine recruiters as they walk around shopping 
mall parking lots trying to recruit kids, giving them a hard sell to 
join the service.  Then we get to meet a mother in Flint whose son was 
killed in Iraq, and she doesn't know why or for what good reason.  Her 
plight is compared to the plight of members of Congress.  Moore goes 
back to the Hill and finds that of all the members of Congress, only 
one has or had a child serving in Iraq.  Moore then chases different 
Congressman down in his man on the street style and demands to know if 
they'd send THEIR kids to Iraq.  We then see Bush, who also never 
served overseas, giving a speech to some of his fatcat donors, 
saying "you are my base"  The implication being that Bush represents 
the elite and the money, and that they are always going to be most 
concerned about maintaining their status and their money, and that in 
the end regular folk-- like this woman and her family in Flint-- are 
the ones paying the real costs.

That only scratches the surface of this film.  It is an amazing 
work.  "Fahrenheit 9/11" won the grand prize at the Cannes Film 
Festival, and when I saw it today, it got big applause at the end.  
Moore is a propogandist of the highest order, and I don't doubt that 
there are arguments for some of the appalling facts he puts forth.  But 
the cumulative effect of the movie is really REALLY powerful.  

I think every American should see Fahrenheit 9/11, regardless of one's 
political views.  It opens nationally on Friday.  (***** five stars out 
of five)

  re #3:  I'm pretty sure Michael Moore is a *former* Flint resident.
  I think he lives in NYC now.

  I won't deny that many of his antics are entertaining but he shouldn't
  be mistaken for a serious political commentator -- I'm uncomfortable
  enough with the notion that people consider his films documentaries.
  Occasionally he scores a good point, often one that nobody else in
  the media seems to be making, and is worth checking in on now and again
  for just this reason, but for the most part I think he's a master of
  cheap shots, duplicitous justapositions, and the "post hoc, ergo propter
  hoc" logical fallacy.  When it comes right down to it he's not any more
  interested in nuance, balance, or honest argument than Ann Coulter is,
  he's just starting from a more palatable political perspective.

  If you think I've painted an unfairly harsh portrait of Michael Moore,
  well, just keep in mind next time you're watching one of his films that
  the most dangerous arguments are the ones you *want* to believe.

Moore has a house in Flint and an apartment on the upper west side in nyc.
Splits his time.  He is maybe the most famous graduate of UM-Flynt too.

McNally wrote

[b]for the most part I think he's a master of
   cheap shots, duplicitous justapositions, and the "post hoc, ergo
propter
   hoc" logical fallacy. [/b]


Don't make such accusations unless you can back them up with specifics.
Its easy to say those things when you don't agree with his political
views, but unfair unless you can back it up.  At least Moore gives details
and specifics.  Did you see "Roger and Me"?  That was a powerful
documentary that has only resonated even better over time than it did when
it first came out.  "Bowling for Columbine" made a lot of good points too.
There is nothing wrong with a documentary filmmaker who wants to make a
statement, and push a particular point of view, in his work.  This is just
one point of view.  He is not making any pretense of being unbiased, and
he doesn't have to.  Reporters reading the news have to be unbiased.
Columnist and documentarians do not.  Moore's tactics aren't any worse
than what Robert Novak and Bill O'Reilly do in their columns.

I havent ever heard anyone accuse Michael Moore of being fair or 
balanced. Even Michael Moore admits that he has an agenda with his 
films. Still, I like his sense of humor and I expect that I will like 
this film as much as I have liked his other ones. And hey, once in a 
while, he opens my eyes to something. Like that Marilyn Manson 
interview in Bowling for Columbine. Interesting that the creepy rock 
star with the terrible lyrics seemed to actually be a nice guy with a 
brain in his head. Well wht do you know! And what Marilyn Manson said 
about not talking to kids but listening to them has kind of stuck with 
me. *shrug* 

        I am tempted to go to the Mich to see it tomorrow
        when it opens. I only go to see first run films
        about once per century.

This response has been erased.

Haha. I am kind of thinking that I might try to catch a morning show at 
Showcase tomorrow but I dont think I am going to have time. GRRRR

re #5.  I'm sorry, you are wrong.  That would be iggy.

This movie is, of course, a despicable work of propaganda and 
trickery.  But we are interested in learning whether the "we're under 
attack" quote is, in fact, true.  If so, (1) how is that known if it 
was whispered and (2) was the the entire extent of the interchange 
between the President and his aide?

resp:5 richard isnt one for checking facts. Moore may have attended UM-
Flint but he never graduated. Next you are going to tell us about all 
of Moore's great work in Michigan getting rid of the death penalty 
here. ;) hahahaha. (remember that one, richard?)

resp:12 I am sure that if anyone was slandered, they wont hesitate to 
take legal action. 

Why?  And in this context, what constitutes "slander?"

Well I figure that if Moore told any actual *lies* in his movie, he 
will be sued. I imagine that he didnt. Which isnt to say that I expect 
the movie to be unbiased. But having a bias is different from telling 
untruths. 

        I read or heard somewhere, recently, Bushie was 
        acting nonchalant on purpose. c/b spin control in
        respnse to MM's film.

        IHB tod started a new item for 9/11 discussion.

Bush may be, but the talking points still involve villifying Moore in
whatever ways possible.

There is a difference between telling a one-sided story and telling
lies. Most critical commentary is one-sided. Take Jonathan Swift,
for example, who excoriated hypocracy and stupidity. That was one-sided, but
not lying. Does Moore lie? Very little, as far as I can tell - at least
that is not what he is criticized for. He is criticized for telling
one-sided stories. Well, OK then: let his critics tell the *whole* stories,
but not of course omitting what Moore highlights or they will be equally
one-sided. 

Mr. Moore is, for example, legendary for using trick editing to convey 
false impressions to his audience.  He uses the camera to lie for him.

Examples?

The trickery involved with Charleton Heston's speech the the NRA, for 
one. A second example is "showing" the ease with which a bank depositor 
could obtain a gun as a premium, when, in fact, in his case it was all 
pre-arranged.

Don't be silly, Rane.  klg has solid opinions about the content and
presentation of this movie, and despite the fact that he'll probably never
see this movie, he'll defend his opinions of it to the death.

Heston said what was shown that he said. No words were put in his mouth.
What "trickery"? And are you denying that the bank offered a gun as a
premium? 

I looked at http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/bank.
htm
where the "staging" of the scene is described. Of course it had to be
"staged" to be filmed. But the fact remains: the bank was offering a gun
as a premium. Most people consider that weird on its own. Toasters, sure:
but, guns?

 re #6:

 >> for the most part I think he's a master of cheap shots, duplicitous
 >> juxtapositions, and the "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" logical fallacy. [/b]
 >  
 >  
 >  Don't make such accusations unless you can back them up with specifics.
 >  Its easy to say those things when you don't agree with his political
 >  views, but unfair unless you can back it up.

 Is there anyone here who has given serious thought to Moore's work
 (which obviously excuses Richard) who doesn't think these are fair
 criticisms?  They don't mean that Moore's work isn't entertaining or
 interesting, but let's not confuse entertaining or interesting with
 honest.  One must keep in mind when reading Moore's writings or watching
 his films that Moore is an untrustworthy narrator.

 Richard doesn't seem to be able to separate the idea of criticism of
 Michael Moore's argumentative style from criticism of Moore's political
 positions.  I suspect he would therefore be shocked to find out that I
 agree (at least partly) with Moore's positions on a number of issues.
 I'm not willing, though, to check my skepticism and critical thinking
 skills at the door when listening to someone, even when I agree with
 much of what they're saying.  I simply don't appreciate being conned,
 even (or perhaps especially) when the con artist is telling me the
 things I want to hear.

 >  He is not making any pretense of being unbiased, and he doesn't
 >  have to.  Reporters reading the news have to be unbiased.
 >  Columnist and documentarians do not.  Moore's tactics aren't any worse
 >  than what Robert Novak and Bill O'Reilly do in their columns.

 Is that really the standard to which we aspire:  no more intellectually
 dishonest than Bill O'Reilly?  Perhaps democracy really *is* doomed.

RE #13..slynne, I don't recall any item where Michael Moore's views on the
death penalty in michigan were discussed, at least by me.  You must be
confused.

re: mcnally, okay I see your problems are with his style.  Moore has an in
your face take no prisoners style and he has been accused of not being
tactful.  there were people who thought he ambushed poor charlton heston and
didn't like it.  But it didn't change the words that came out of Heston's
mouth did it?  It is whether the means justify the ends, when it comes to
Moore's tactics.  I believe that what he is telling is truth, in a way that
few others have the guts to tell it these days, and questionable tactics
aside, that should be admired.

btw, at the theater, every single showing all day long in all three theaters
in the multiplex that had it were sold out all day long yesterday and today
in advance.  this movie should break all the records for highest grossing
documentary.  Makes you wonder if Disney regrets refusing to release it. 
Moore gets in his shot there too.  In the movie, he goes into the various
corporations that Saudis are heavily invested in, and pointedly mentions
Disney as being one them.  

resp:27 I was just teasing you about that one time when you went on a 
rant about how no one in Michigan seemed to be doing anything to 
abolish the death penalty. That was years ago but it stuck in my mind 
because it was soooooo funny ;) 

Re resp:4: I consider him more like Rush Limbaugh than Ann Coulter.  Ann
Coulter is her own special brand of harshness -- she thinks anyone who
disagrees with her is guilty of treason.  Reading her work you get the
impression she wants to see all liberals locked up behind razor wire.

Moore, like Limbaugh, is selective and one-sided, plays fast and loose
with the facts, and is an entertainer, not a journalist.  Moore,
unlikely Limbaugh, is actually funny.  (Limbaugh used to be funnier,
before he started taking himself so seriously, though.)

Of course, Limbaugh's audience and media exposure is exponentially
larger than Moore's, too.

Re resp:25: The Ford dealership in Houghton used to run a promo where if
you bought an F-150, you got entered in a drawing to win a .30-06.  I
thought at the time that this was the most redneck bit of advertising
I'd ever heard.

Why is Mr. Moore's film called a documentary?  He states that he is not 
a journalist; rather, he is a comedian.  And a rich comedian at that, 
masquerading as a "man of the people." He owns 2 homes, each valued at 
> $1M.  Even his "life" is a fictional fraud.

How does this compare with Rush Limbaugh's finances?

Re resp:30: George W. Bush claims to be a 'man of the people', too, and
he didn't exactly grow up in a trailer park.

hey woody allen's a comedian who's also a great filmmaker.  Doesn't have to
be mutually exclusive.  The fact is that Moore deals with very serious
subject in an extraordinarly effective way.  There were a lot of people in
tears by the end of the movie when I saw it.  

Moore btw is making sure Fahrenheit 911 gets released on DVD before the
election and has said he'll work with Move On and other groups, and even go
into his own pocket if necessary, to ensure that voters in swing states get
copies of this movie

Because this is the general movie review item, and Fahrenheit 9/11 is worthy
of more detailed discussion, I have entered item 30 for that purpose.

What other movies has anyone seen recently?  Spiderman 2 opens next week and
is getting strong advance buzz that it is better than the first one.  One
poster in one board who saw it says its this year's "Empire Strikes Back"

SAVED--  This movie reminded me of "Heathers", the great Winona
Ryder/Christian Slater high school movie from a few years back.  You have
the in crowd and the out crowd, and a confused girl who starts out part of
one crowd and ends up in the other.  The lead character is a high school
girl at an evangelical private school (a "Jesus High" as some call them)
Her boyfriend turns out to be gay, and she thinks she had a vision from
God that she should sleep with him to save him from his gayness.  She
thinks if she sleeps with him, he will be cured of his gayness, and then
God will restore her virginity.  It is the kind of twisted thinking you
get from being brainwashed at Jesus High.  Naturally the boyfriend is not
cured of his gayness, and she ends up pregnant instead.  Causing her to
have a crisis of faith, which her snooty in crowd friends can't
understand, so she ends up with the out crowd.

This movie conveys a fine message of tolerance and acceptance, and that
faith and skepticism need not be mutually exclusive things.  Its got a
good cast and good writing.  I had a couple of issues with the plot and
was annoyed that the central character, who is hiding her pregnancy,
manages to get almost all the way through her senior year without her
pregnancy showing.  She just wears sweaters and manages to gain absolutely
no weight in the face or arms, just in her stomach.  The director should
have had this girl go on a get fat diet during the filming, so that she is
actually showing the weight gain in a natural way by the last trimester.

But that is nitpicking.  This was a good, not great but solidly good, film
that has a lot of good things to say.  

It isnt unheard of for teenaged girls to effectively hide their 
pregnanacies. Not everyone gains weight in the face or arms when they 
are pregnant. Different people carry babies differently. 

One of my favorite stories is about a friend of mine who ran into an ex-
boyfriend just a couple of days before her due date. Later on she heard 
that he had mentioned running into her to a mutual friend and had said 
that he thought that she *might* be getting a little bit of a belly 
which he thought was kind of weird. Seriously, she just didnt even look 
pregnant even that late in her pregnancy. 

"The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra" is a hoot.  It's a 2004 film that
does a great job of pretending to be a 1950's sci-fi classic.

If you love the genre ya gotta rent this one.

 FAHRENHEIT 9/11 is a documentary only in france. here, with thinking
people it is properly recognized as a superior political polemic.
  
wroing sided in the first half but revealing in the 2nd half.

There is no rule that a documentary cant have a bias. 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss